Is the Immigration Ban Politically Viable?
January 30, 2017
The current ban on immigration from 7 countries is a low political risk, as it is highly popular among President Trump's base, but the question will become whether or not that base is shrinking.
Gallup now shows that it took just 8 days into his presidency for Trump to climb above a fifty percent disapproval rating. Trump nos stands at 51% disapproval, and 42% approval, which should be disquieting numbers for Republicans. The Trump camp is likely less concerned, as they have long been suspicious of polls, and are more likely to count on depth of enthusiasm to counter any strength of opposition.
However, I imagine there are a lot of careful measurements and calculations being made by the Congressional Republicans, and some decisions will be made shortly about how long to stay aboard, and when to start abandoning ship on some of the more controversial initiatives. It may be a lot easier to return to first Republican/conservative principles, and just begin to ignore the White House as much as practicable.
The Broken Supreme Court Nomination Process
February 1, 2017
Gorsuch is eminently qualified. He has the background, the pedigree, experience, and apparently, the temperament.
By traditional standards, Republicans did steal that seat on the Court. They should be humbled. They know what they did was not in keeping with the best traditions of the Senate or the country.
Democrats should not retaliate in kind. The country needs a return to sanity. Despite a deep desire, the Democrats simply aren't going to get Merrick Garland on the Court. It is a travesty, but it is no reason to fight a losing battle, and it is no reason to take it out on Gorsuch.
Politically speaking, President Trump is already having a difficult time and has been flailing to a degree, and sinking in the polls. This one good night will likely be a short-term story if past is prologue.
Democrats shouldn't throw Trump a lifeline by demonstrating obstinacy, and starting a debate about who is "more right". The country has an empty seat on the high court that needs to be filled. Democrats need to take the high road by thoroughly vetting Judge Gorsuch, having serious hearings, and then giving an honest vote.
For their part, Republicans need to take cooperation when it is offered. They should not jam through the nomination, as they clearly did with so many of the more tenuous Cabinet nominations for President Trump. This will take months, just as in previous Supreme Court confirmation processes. That is both fair and appropriate. Republicans also should not complain about not having a Justice seated for this term of the Court -- they held up an appointment for an entire year, and the fault for that gap lies entirely with their choice of strategy. Accordingly, claiming a need for timeliness is not a high-road upon which they can reasonably tread.
This process should be apolitical, but it has been corrupted. Rather than an endless cycle of recrimination, vengeance, and one-upmanship, someone needs to hit the reset button towards comity. Democrats should not try to block this nomination out of spite -- not only because it is wrong for democracy, but it will be politically detrimental as well.
The Democrats also should not take the bait of appearing obstructionist, and providing an excuse for the factions pushing to end the filibuster altogether. They must retain the power inherent in the minority of the Senate if they are to act as a bulwark against even more offensive legislative initiatives that may emanate from the administration.
On the Gorsuch nomination, Democrats should ask themselves what a win would realistically look like? They will not get Merrick Garland on the Court. They are unlikely to get a nominee instead of Gorsuch that they will prefer. They cannot realistically hold the seat open for four years. What they can do is lose the filibuster on legislation and Supreme Court nominations. Absent a clear path to a victory, executing a Charge of the Light Brigade might be satisfying for the base, but will end the same way as the poem -- badly.
When the shoe is on the other foot in the near future, Democrats should also not at all be a little shy in reminding Republicans that they did the right thing. This may not ultimately have an impact, as it signals that the offending party rarely pays a price in the the current political environment where winning in the short-term is often viewed as the greatest good.
In the case of the Gorsuch nomination, the Democrats should adhere to tradition and give him a fair hearing -- not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it is the best political option for now.Type your paragraph here.Type your paragraph here.
EDGE
Advocacy Solutions
The DOW Breaks 20,000 - But for How Long?
January 27, 2017
The White House decision to take a victory lap on the DOW breaking 20,000 is a dangerous move, as what goes up invariably goes down. As a politician, if you take credit for a rise in the DOW after just 5 days in office, you also have to accept responsibility for a decline after a longer period in office.
There are also some tricky political logic problems that come into play. As a candidate, Donald Trump criticized Obama as a failed president. However, when Obama took office, the DOW was at 7,949 and was at 19,827 the day he left office. It could be politically tricky to continue to downplay that 11,878 point rally, but play up the final 173 point rally that drove the market over 20,000.
When the market drops, it will be interesting to see the political reaction and any shifting of blame when the market corrects.
Senate Health Bill Squeezes the Middle
June 26, 2017
As people start looking at the Senate health bill, there are a couple of things to note. One is that the bill basically puts the squeeze on middle-aged and middle-income people -- with middle-aged being defined as over 40. They will pay a larger percentage of their income under the Senate plan than under Obamacare -- and they will be paying more for less coverage. The savings the government would achieve through these cuts and through cuts to Medicaid would be used to give a tax cut to the wealthy.
For someone with earnings around 350% of the poverty line, this would be a big jump: from spending 9.7% of income on premiums under ACA to 16.2% under the Senate bill. In addition, people would be purchasing worse health insurance with these higher contributions, as the subsidies under the Senate bill are benchmarked to plans that provide less comprehensive coverage than those under current law (current law requires mid-level plans to cover an average of 70% of costs, and the Republican bill says it only has to bee 58%).
Here are a couple of telling charts:
Reality TV Politics
January 31, 2017
There is an odd shift happening in our governance and politics, with a shift towards reality TV over substance.
One perfect example of this is the upcoming announcement of the nomination of the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The announcement, which typically is made in the morning, has been shifted to an 8:00pm prime time announcement. This is presumably to make the networks break into primetime coverage with "breaking news".
Even more odd is that it has been reported that both of the leading candidates are being brought to the White House today, and neither knows yet whether or not they are the nominee.
This type of reality-TV "reveal" setup has a few perils. The first is that this is serious business, and it is simply unseemly. The second, is that it has the potential for increasing partisanship by creating "fans" of a specific candidate -- while that might be the objective of the spectacle, it is not good for the long-term operation of our democracy. Finally, it also could raise problems for the administration, in that by having both potential candidates clearly identified, it will beg several questions. What was wrong with the "loser"? On the next round of nominations, if you don't pick the former runner-up, what changed? If not that runner-up, why wasn't the new guy considered in the last nomination process?
At the end of the day, a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land is not a reality show moment, and it shouldn't be treated like one. The President of the United States should not be setting up a media event, where he is effectively 'giving a rose' to his pick of the two eligible candidates on live TV.
The media shouldn't give this a spotlight. Put a crawl at the bottom of the screen, but don't break in with live coverage. Democracy is serious, it isn't a spectacle, and the best way to show that is providing limited coverage of the trappings and window dressing of this political stunt.Type your paragraph here.
A Transactional Foreign Policy
February 2, 2017
The latest incident to cause controversy based on the actions of President Trump provides some insight into how he approaches many of the problems that he may face as president. To clarify, as there have been a myriad of controversial issues, this refers to the reports and subsequent confirmation of President Trump’s reportedly terse conversation with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and agita over a U.S. agreement to take in 1,250 refugees currently detained in that country.
First, some background. The details of the call are somewhat in dispute. Reports say that President Trump was agitated over an agreement reached under the Obama administration that said the U.S. would accept 1,250, mostly Afghani, Iranian, and Iraqi refugees currently held at Australian facilities in Nauru island or Manus island in Papua New Guinea. The conditions there are reportedly very meagre and hard, and many of the refugees are children. This has caused significant concern among the Australian public, and the Aussie government sought a deal with the United States to help alleviate some of the pressure. The deal that was reached was that the U.S. would accept up to 1,250 refugees prioritizing families and children, and all candidates would be subjected to a thorough vetting process – the Department of Homeland Security would conduct two rounds of interviews with each candidate, in addition to the Australian vetting process that has already occurred. It is expected that the process would take at least 6 months to a year before the refugees were transferred.
These are facts. Notwithstanding the messaging from the White House that the refugees who might be coming are illegal immigrants, or that there may be “thousands” (plural).
Those are the facts.
The interesting part is the insight into the mindset of a Trump presidency. Specifically, that everything is transactional. Everything is a deal. Everything is an isolated incident that is unconnected to any other factor. This belies a lack of the fundamental understanding of how the world works in terms of domestic politics and foreign relations.
It is an immutable fact of national and global politics that everything is connected.
To illustrate this fact, we can look right to Australia. The U.S. has a significant portion of our South China Sea radar and signals detection bases in Australia or at least tied to facilities there. The U.S. has Marines stationed in Australia for joint training – which was a big deal. Australia has supported the United States going back to every conflict since WWII – WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the First Iraq War, Afghanistan, the second time into Iraq, Afghanistan, and the modern fight against global terrorism. They are one of the “5 Eyes” group that agrees to share almost all of the most sensitive intelligence – The U.S., Australia, the U.K., Canada, and New Zealand. This means we share almost everything (outside of sources and methods), and we generally don’t spy on each other. This is a key ally.
This is a vital ally – without question.
The original point was to discuss President Trump’s mindset, but that background is vital. In this case, it is quite clear that President Trump views interactions with almost one-offs. He is aggravated about the fact that there are refugees potentially coming to the U.S. that were authorized under a prior administration. The fact that this is a sticking point is concerning. Australia has stood with the U.S. in any number of conflicts. They maintain the partnership with blood and treasure. Mr. Trump discounts the value of those alliances, because they didn’t happen during his tenure and he wasn’t personally involved.
The issue with a transactional president is that there is no understanding of how interconnected the country and the world really is. Obama’s deal with the Australians was a recognition of the strength of the alliance and how friends help each other. In a transactional presidency, there is no recognition or respect for history, but each situation is considered on an individual basis for its cost-benefit analysis. What do we get out of it?
There is no recognition of ideals – shared ideals. There is no banking of good will or even favors. Each interaction must benefit the stronger party.
That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how of how politics works. Demanding at least a one-for-one exchange on every interaction is short-sighted to the point of childishness. International relations and even domestic politics are not a simple game. Every move has an impact on the other options between politicians and nations states.
This slap-dash approach, with no check from the legislative branch is extremely concerning.
Right now, everyone else seems to be playing chess, and the President is playing jacks.Type your paragraph here.
Situational Ethics and the Move to Kill Obamacare
February 8, 2017
Situational ethics have always been a part of government and politics, and are probably the leading cause of hypocrisy in Washington -- well, that and actual hypocrites. However, the Trump administration may be making another obvious venture into the realm of situation ethics that could again put his Republican colleagues in Congress at odds with traditional declarations of their bedrock beliefs -- the oft repeated declaration of the need to adhere to the plain language reading of the law as written.
In this case, it is a rumored regulation being developed at the Department of Health and Human Services concerning the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare or the ACA). The provision deals with a technical aspect of the law that very clearly states that the most expensive premium an insurance company can charge for a specific coverage plan can be no more than three-times as expensive as the cheapest plan of that type. This is called the age band rating. It essentially lowers prices for older people by raising the prices on younger people. Whether that is good policy, or whether the band ratings should be wider (insurance companies have long advocated for a 5:1 ratio) is debatable.
What is not debatable is the clear language of the law, which reads as follows (section iii is the relevant portion):
‘‘(a) PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATORY PREMIUM RATES.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—With respect to the premium rate charged by a health insurance issuer for health insurance coverage offered in the individual or small group market—
‘‘(A) such rate shall vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved only by—
‘‘(i) whether such plan or coverage covers an individual or family;
‘‘(ii) rating area, as established in accordance with paragraph (2);
‘‘(iii) age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults (consistent with section 2707(c)); and
‘‘(iv) tobacco use, except that such rate shall notvary by more than 1.5 to 1; and
‘‘(B) such rate shall not vary with respect to the particular plan or coverage involved by any other factor not described in subparagraph (A).
For emphasis, I will quote it again: "Age, except that such rate shall not vary by more than 3 to 1 for adults..." There just isn't a whole lot of ambiguity there.
The Trump administration plan has been reported to change the ratio from the aforementioned 3 to 1, to -- wait for it -- 3.49 to 1. The tortured logic behind this change is that 3.49 still rounds down to be 3, so it should still be legally permissible. That is patently asinine and facially absurd.
I can't imagine there is a Republican anywhere in Congress who would be comfortable using that rationale. They might hide behind supporting the move because it is better for young people (though I doubt it, since it would raise premiums on older people and AARP has threatened to sue). I really can't imagine a judge anywhere in the country not laughing that legal argument right out of court.
It is attempts like these to be too clever by half that make people hate politics and politicians. It is even more surprising from someone who brands himself as a plainspoken straight-shooter. Then again, maybe it isn't shocking if you think that this falls instead under Trump's brand as a shrewd deal maker. There is only one problem: this isn't a deal, it is the law.
The move, if it goes forward, will undoubtedly put Republicans in difficult ethical spot, and force them to defend a position that is in diametric opposition to many, many prior admonishments to adhere to the reading of the law and to restrain the use of executive power.
Perhaps it would be better if everyone just stuck to those bedrock principles and worked the process. It is undoubtedly slower, but it is also clearly more morally comforting than trampling the line between expediency and hypocrisy.Type your paragraph here.
Budgets are Statements of Priorities
May 24, 2017
In what might be termed an interesting budget proposal, President Trump's FY 2018 budget proposal would completely eliminate 66 federal programs, for a savings of $26.7 billion. Some of the programs would receive funding for 2018 as part of a phasing-out plan.
Here are the programs the administration wants to eliminate:
Agriculture Department — $855 million
•McGovern-Dole International Food for Education
•Rural Business-Cooperative Service
•Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account
•Single Family Housing Direct Loans
Commerce Department — $633 million
•Economic Development Administration
•Manufacturing Extension Partnership
•Minority Business Development Agency
•National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Grants and Education
Education Department — $4.976 billion
•21st Century Community Learning Centers
•Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants
•Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants
•Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property
•International Education
•Strengthening Institutions
•Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants
•Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants
•Teacher Quality Partnership
Energy Department — $398 million
•Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy
•Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Loan Program and Title 17 Innovative Technology Loan Guarantee Program
•Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility
Health and Human Services — $4.834 billion
•Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
•Community Services Block Grant
•Health Professions and Nursing Training Programs
•Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
Homeland Security — $235 million
•Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program
•Transportation Security Administration Law Enforcement Grants
Housing and Urban Development — $4.123 billion
•Choice Neighborhoods
•Community Development Block
•HOME Investment Partnerships Program
•Self-Help and Assisted Homeownership Opportunity Program Account
Interior Department — $122 million
•Abandoned Mine Land Grants
•Heritage Partnership Program
•National Wildlife Refuge Fund
Justice Department — $210 million
•State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
Labor Department — $527 million
•Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker Training
•OSHA Training Grants
•Senior Community Service Employment Program
State Department and USAID — $4.256 billion
•Development Assistance
Earmarked Appropriations for Non-Profit Organizations
•The Asia Foundation
•East-West Center
•P.L. 480 Title II Food Aid
State Department, USAID, and Treasury Department — $1.59 billion
•Green Climate Fund and Global Climate Change Initiative
Transportation Department — $499 million
•National Infrastructure Investments (TIGER)
Treasury Department — $43 million
•Global Agriculture and Food Security Program
Environmental Protection Agency — $493 million
•Energy Star and Voluntary Climate Programs
•Geographic Programs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration — $269 million
•Five Earth Science Missions
•Office of Education
Other Independent Agencies — $2.683 billion
•Chemical Safety Board
•Corporation for National and Community Service
•Corporation for Public Broadcasting
•Institute of Museum and Library Services
International Development Foundations
•African Development Foundation
•Inter-American Foundation
•Legal Services Corporation
•National Endowment for the Arts
•National Endowment for the Humanities
•Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation
•Overseas Private Investment Corporation
Regional Commissions
•Appalachian Regional Commission
•Delta Regional Authority
•Denali Commission
•Northern Border Regional Commission
•U.S. Institute of Peace
•U.S. Trade and Development Agency
•Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars